By The Craig Bushon Show Media Team
Australia has begun enforcing a law that prohibits children under the age of 16 from holding accounts on major social media platforms. The measure is enforced against technology companies rather than families and carries substantial financial penalties for noncompliance. It represents the most comprehensive nationwide age-based restriction on social media access adopted by a Western democracy to date.
The law does not rely on parental consent mechanisms and does not impose criminal or civil penalties on minors or parents. Instead, it places the compliance burden on platform operators, requiring them to take reasonable steps to prevent underage account creation and use. Companies that fail to comply face fines approaching 50 million Australian dollars per violation.
Australia’s approach has attracted international attention not because it can be easily replicated elsewhere, but because it reflects a broader reassessment of how democratic governments address children’s exposure to large-scale digital platforms.
The legislation applies to major social media services characterized by interactive features, algorithmic content delivery, and data-driven engagement models. Platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, YouTube, and X fall within its scope. The restriction does not constitute a general internet ban. Children may still access informational websites, educational tools, and non-social digital services. The regulatory focus is narrowly directed at platforms that combine social interaction with algorithmic amplification and commercial data collection.
By structuring enforcement around corporate responsibility rather than individual behavior, the law reflects a judgment that voluntary safeguards and parental control tools have not produced meaningful compliance.
That conclusion is supported by data.
In the United States, the Surgeon General’s 2023 advisory identified consistent associations between heavy social media use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, sleep disruption, and diminished self-esteem among adolescents. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness among teenagers increased from approximately 26 percent in 2009 to over 40 percent by 2021, with the sharpest increases occurring among adolescent girls.
Australian government surveys cited during parliamentary debates showed that a majority of teens reported negative emotional effects linked to social media use, including appearance-related anxiety, cyberbullying, and difficulty disengaging from platforms. These findings were central to the government’s conclusion that existing regulatory approaches were inadequate.
Denmark, which is advancing a similar proposal targeting children under 15, has reported comparable compliance failures. Government data indicates that 98 percent of Danish children under 13 maintain at least one social media account despite existing EU-level restrictions. Nearly half of children under 10 are active users. These figures illustrate the limits of age rules that rely primarily on self-reporting and voluntary enforcement.
Corporate disclosures have further reinforced these concerns. During U.S. congressional hearings, Meta acknowledged that internal research showed Instagram exacerbated body-image issues and anxiety for a significant portion of teenage users. These findings were known internally while public communications emphasized the adequacy of platform safety tools.
Taken together, this evidence has shifted policy discussions away from parental supervision models and toward structural regulation of platform design and incentives.
Social media companies operate on business models that reward prolonged engagement, data harvesting, and algorithmic content amplification. Children represent a particularly valuable demographic due to early habit formation and long-term user retention. Expecting parents to counteract these systems through individual monitoring or optional settings has proven unrealistic.
Australia’s enforcement model reflects a growing view among policymakers that platform-level obligations are necessary to address incentives that prioritize engagement over user welfare. The law does not seek to eliminate youth internet use. It seeks to constrain specific digital environments that combine social pressure, algorithmic escalation, and commercial exploitation.
Any comparable effort in the United States would face distinct constitutional constraints. Laws regulating access to speech are subject to strict scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest using the least restrictive means available. Broad age-based bans on social media access would likely face serious legal challenges if they fail to distinguish between regulating expression and regulating corporate conduct.
However, constitutional limits do not preclude regulation.
The most defensible approaches focus on platform conduct rather than speech content. Requirements governing algorithmic design, default settings for minors, data collection practices, and engagement-optimizing features fall within consumer protection and commercial regulation, areas where courts have historically granted governments broader authority.
Age-appropriate design mandates are similarly more likely to withstand judicial review. Policies that require safer default environments for minors, restrict targeted advertising to children, or limit algorithmic amplification regulate how platforms operate rather than what ideas may be expressed.
Verified parental-consent frameworks also present a constitutionally stronger alternative to outright bans. When structured to provide meaningful, revocable parental control, such systems align with longstanding recognition of parental authority in child-rearing decisions.
Liability-based enforcement offers another viable path. Expanding civil liability for platforms that knowingly expose minors to foreseeable harm through negligent or reckless design shifts regulation from prior restraint to post-hoc accountability, an approach courts generally view more favorably.
Uniform federal standards would be essential for any durable U.S. response. State-by-state restrictions raise Commerce Clause concerns and risk inconsistent enforcement. A narrowly tailored, evidence-based federal framework would be more likely to survive judicial review.
Australia’s law is unlikely to be the final word. Denmark’s proposed under-15 restriction, ongoing reviews in the United Kingdom, and parallel efforts across Europe and Asia suggest a broader reassessment of how digital environments intersect with child welfare.
For the United States, these developments do not offer a template but a reference point. They underscore the accumulating evidence that voluntary safeguards have not produced meaningful compliance and that platform incentives remain misaligned with youth protection.
The central policy question is no longer whether social media affects children, but how democratic systems respond within their legal frameworks. In the United States, that response will depend on precision, constitutional restraint, and a clear distinction between regulating expression and regulating corporate conduct.
Disclaimer
This op-ed is an analytical and informational commentary produced by The Craig Bushon Show Media Team. It is intended to examine public policy developments, legal frameworks, and constitutional considerations related to social media regulation and child welfare. The views expressed are for educational and discussion purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. References to foreign laws and regulatory approaches are provided for comparative analysis and should not be interpreted as endorsements or as recommendations for direct adoption within the United States. Any discussion of constitutional principles reflects general legal analysis and publicly available information and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice from qualified legal counsel.
